Syria, Russia and the U.S

[DNAnotGRA]

AIBU to be very concerned about the latest events regarding Syria. It would seem the U.S is hell bent on a hot war in the region, the potential ripple effect would be catastrophic. Trumps tweet reads:

"Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!"

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520

Your jingoistic warmongering posts are offensive too, mate.

Heyduggeesflipflop Fri 13-Apr-18 09:49:03
Flytipper - more revisionism - the uk was not under existential threat when we declared war on hitler in 1939 our allies were. Erm, so Hitler had no plans on invading the UK then? Hmm....I thought we got close to capitulation and installing a puppet government like the Vichy regime. Must be all that Russian propaganda I'm imbibing....

My point stands - you all crow about the west while enjoying its freedoms and opportunities yet you at the same time tacitly defend some of the most brutish regimes in the neighbourhood. Erm, no?

As I say moral cowardice and a hypocritical stance in the extreme. Well, I know where the propaganda really has been imbibed. I think you're overinvested in this thread.

I am not saying the west is whiter than white / but even the grey colour it probably really is is better than the aggressive and cynical machinations of the current Russian state. A state which has surrounded Syria with sophisticated air defence systems so other countries cannot interfere

Glad you agree its interfering lol!

But fine for uk to arm other far more despotic ME regimes than Syria to the teeth? double standards.
Syria was a secular state, with modern education, health and transport systems, had relative freedoms, Christians could practice in peace and a woman involved in an affair would nt be stripped and stoned to death... we made Syria our enemy because of Israel and Russia.....
Saudi executes almost as many people as China.... but thats all ok, because SA buy Eurofighters and keeps 5000 jobs in the UK.

You need to open your eyes to what is going on.

No, Flytipper. Britain was not 'close to capitulation and installing a puppet government like the Vichy regime'. Is that the Russian version?

If that had been the case, we'd hardly have gone to war on behalf of Poland, 'a faraway country of which we know nothing'. At the time of the Sudetenland annexation, there was still the hope that that would be enough for Hitler. Even some of his close associates were surprised when they realised his ambitions were world-wide.

There was general rejoicing in GB and France at the time of Munich, tho' Attlee and the LP were against appeasement and thought we should have stood up to Hitler over Czechoslovakia. Russia took it as a sign we would not fight and entered into a pact with Hitler, in return for part of Poland. Hitler invaded and we declared war on Germany in accordance with our treaty with Poland.

There was never any question of a Vichy-type puppet government.

Madge - rest assured I’m not your ‘mate’

Thymeout - thank you for the informative post. Britain has a long and proud history of going to the aid of other international states. Apparently that is now classed as warmongering

Nothing to say about the use of cluster bombs or depleted uranium though, I see

Again, I am v curious as to how these types of weapon are ‘proportionate’ as per your words

Madge

Please define what you mean exactly by cluster bombs please? The closest the uk had were air dropped anti airfield denial weapons containing land mines. Those were phased out a long time ago under international land mine treaties.

Depleted uranium shells are still widely used I believe by many nations. Despite the name they are not some kind of radiation weapon they are used to to tip anti tank shells to increase their armour penetration properties

Hope this helps you with the facts.

Now let’s contrast with Syria. Known use of chemical weapons and nerve agents. Use of barrel bombs (ie untargetted carpet bombing). In other words indiscriminate violence.

Not that you will care, but prolonged exposure to depleted uranium is dangerous. A quick google yields any number of studies published in reputable journals which says as much.

The effects take time to be seen, they don’t deal the instant death of chemical weapons but these effects are prolonged, and persistent.

The UK, and more widely NATO are not some bunch of freedom-fighting good guys who seek to uphold truth justice and democracy. They are a cohort of allies who act in whatever they perceive their interests as being, and their concept of self-defence is fairly elastic.

Go to war with syria, drop more bombs or whatever you fancy but please drop the saviour act, it is grim.

Madge

‘prolonged exposure to depleted uranium is dangerous.‘

I hate to ruin your snowflakey view of the world but prolonged exposure to a battlefield is dangerous

@Heyduggeesflipflop
Now let’s contrast with Syria. Known use of chemical weapons and nerve agents. Use of barrel bombs (ie untargetted carpet bombing). In other words indiscriminate violence

We cant be the worlds Policeman, we ve failed that time time after, it doesn't work.

So, lets say a short military air war costs £5 billion (it ll prob be considerably more) would that 5b be best spent on more bombs in a war that has almost finished and has no shortage of bombs or spent in the camps housing millions of Syrians displaced by war in Jordan/Turkey and Lebanon?

Incidentally only 22% of the UK want to bomb Syria.......

When the Uk and NATO decide to weigh in, anywhere and everywhere is a battlefield - passenger trains, embassies, children’s hospitals, you name it. To pretend in this day and age that war is two armies on a field far from any human settlements is ridiculous. I wonder what your motivation is.

Good thing I guess that when the UK bombs Syria they will no doubt use the precision bombs and not the ones that do often missed military targets and hit civilian ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, etc etc etc

Madge - we have already established you have very little idea about what you are talking about once we get beyond rhetoric and into the realm of facts.

Perhaps you have outlived your usefulness on this thread

I've normally vote conservative but if Teresa May leads bombs Syria (dragging us all into the shitstorm it will create) then I will not be voting Tory ever again. She's quite happy to with hold additional funding from the NHS but then as if by magic will find the money to fund a bombing campaign, killing innocent civilians in the process. Why isn't there going to be a vote on this in parliament - it's all guns blazing as usual - anything to keep America happy.

There is always money for war. There is always money for whatever a government wants to spend it on, until they no longer wish to spend, at which point it isn’t there any more.

Quite a neat trick, really, when you think about it

Heyduggee, which part of my post wasn’t factual- the part about there being no battlefield which exists far away from where civilians live, or the part about how there are always civilian casualties in any military intervention.

I am increasingly doubtful that you have had any military experience beyond maybe playing Risk, or COD on PlayStation- these are not disputed facts, this is what warfare looks like now.

That you can be so casual about it is actually quite chilling. Maybe you should talk to someone? It certainly isn’t a healthy reaction to death and destruction.

I am not worried as Trump and Putin are both power mad. They love control. If there is all out war yes they would safe in their bunkers but what would they have left to rule and control when they came out? Nothing at all.

It’s time they just measured their dicks and had done with it

I have just checked back in on this thread to find 5 pages of interactions, thank you so much for your posts, in time I will endeavour to read each and every one regardless of which side of the fence on which you sit. For my part I find it difficult to believe any/much of the current rhetoric coming from all sides involved in this situation, not because I am "paranoid" or a "tin foil hatter" but because I try to look at both sides of any debate and try to elicit a kernel of truth within the propaganda from both West and East. In these days of "fake news" it is often difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Uh oh, just getting up to put the news on

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43762251

I don’t know what to think. I don’t have a side. But please God, please protect the innocents

Yes - but how many innocents would not have died if Obama had taken action in 2013 when Assad crossed his 'red line'? It's all v well to talk about taking it to the UN and peace talks when nothing has been achieved in the last 5 years except death and destruction. Russia entered the war militarily 2 years later and now controls 'the peace process'.

It's always useful to explore the road not taken.

I agree, this is the leftovers of Obama's Presidency. Some people have rose tinted glasses of Obama. He sat back and watched NK build nukes and didn't have the backbone to go after Assad when he was on the ropes with no Russia in the background.